Thursday, September 30, 2010

For those who have personally researched real food-low-carb dieting and have applied the principles and seen the results on their health, you eventually reach a point where you realize that your Doctor, your family physician or your HMO nutritionist gives you dietary advice that YOU KNOW IS WRONG. Yet these are the same professionals who may have treated an illness you had or set a broken bone or even performed life saving or life-changing surgery on you. They are highly intelligent, educated and furthermore, you've known them for years and you simply feel good when you see them, because you know they genuinely want to help you with your health problems...

....but they give dietary advice that you know damn well is outright LIES.

I was brought to this train of thoughts today, because I just read a post by a Dr. who definitely understands the truth about diet and nutrition, Dr. Michael Eades. From The Pitiful State of Medical Ignorance:

It’s difficult to imagine the number of people who go into doctor’s offices every day with weight problems, elevated blood sugar, high blood pressure, and abnormal lipids and are told with great authority to eat less and exercise more. If the patient asks the doctor for a specific diet, the doc usually has the nurse give the patient the standard 1800 kcal low-fat diet sheet. Depending upon the motivation of the patient, this diet may or may not be followed. If the patient does suck up and follow the diet, many, of not most, will fail. When these poor folks come back for their recheck, their doctor then wants to put them on some sort of drug. Believe me, the stories above aren’t atypical. This is happening all across the country thousands of times every single day.

And I’m mad as hell because it doesn’t have to be this way.

There is another option. These poor people could be given a low-carbohydrate diet to try. Most of the doctors who prescribe the 1800 kcal diet (along with a recommendation to exercise more) could give people the choice. A low-carbohydrate diet or a low-calorie diet. But the vast majority of them don’t. They simply opt for the low-calorie diet, then resort to drugs when it doesn’t work.

Dr. Eades, a licensed physician, doesn't ever really get around to actually trying to point out WHY so many Doctors "opt for the low-calorie diet, then resort to drugs when it doesn't work."

I left the following comment on his blog, and I'm curious to see if he lets it show up (he moderates all comments).

If you want to know WHY so many Doctors dispense bad dietary advice, and refuse to believe their own eyes when their patients improve after going low-carb, you have to look at the big picture.

Low Carb is the exact opposite of what the USDA advises with their High-Carb Pyramid.

Follow the money.

Who regularly gets appointed to the highest echelons of the USDA? Big Agriculture execs for the likes of Monsanto and Cargill.

And who profits from having a populace deliberately mislead, literally slowly poisoned by their high-carb, processed food diets?

The Pharmaceutical industry (Who get there execs appointed to the FDA…are we starting to recognize a pattern?)

Big Money corporations buy influence by giving their money to politicians who than appoint their lackeys to the regulatory agencies who literally control the messages being promoted by our mass media and medical community regarding diet and nutrition.
Most Doctors are not deliberately prescribing these diets because they’re happily rubbing their hands together because they are receiving perks from Pharma reps for prescribing statins (although that does play a part), you also have to understand that most of the Doctors are reading peer-reviewed journals and/or given the latest “results” provided by the Pharma companies themselves with deliberately misleading results that all promote the same outcome – keep the sheeple eating the grains and prescribe the profitable drugs that mask the symptoms that result from the long term consequences of the conventional wisdom’s dietary advice.

My own personal family physician recently retired. He’s close to 90 lbs. overweight. He has chronic asthma. When I related my own discovery of low carb dietary knowledge, and how I lost 35 lbs. in 4 months and have kept it off for 4 years straight now by “eating bacon and eggs cooked in grease and butter” every morning, it simply did not compute with him. It was like his eyes glazed over and he simply tuned out what I was saying.
He simply could not come to grips with a living, breathing example of a person who was doing everything contrary to what his medical journals and professional nutritionist guidelines of our HMO direct him to apply to his own medical practice.
Quite simply, Doctors, like most people that have imbibed a lifetime of government/corporate propaganda via our mass media and public school curriculum, can’t deal with the cognitive dissonance of real live examples that are contrary to their own indoctrination that is repeatedly reinforced both inside (pharmaceutical sales reps sales sheets and peer review journals touting bad diet advice and pharmaceutical remedies) and outside (our mass media dietary zeitgeist) of their professional environment.

Most Doctors that prescribe bad diets and even worse medication to ameliorate the symptoms of those bad diets, are simply nothing more than highly educated and licensed useful idiots.

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Seems like a lot of folks have been discussing hypergamy on their blogs as of late.

I'm rather busy as of late (hence my really sporadic and infrequent posting), so I'm not going to offer the usual linkage to all the good folks that have been writing on the topic...rest assured, you need only look at my blogroll to see the various angles that have been up for discussion by such luminaries as Dalrock, Deansdale, Chuck, Athol et al. Much of the debate has been dealing with men who appear to be angry, upset or think of female hypergamy as some sort of defect.

I've already done a bit of ruminating on this topic awhile back, but I think I'd like to repost some of the commentary that was left on that particular post, as I think it contributes some good points for this topic: It's All About Hypergamy

Mating strategies of men and women are nothing more than the reproductive biological imperative: Women are instinctually attracted to male dominance and men are instinctually attracted to female fertility.

It really is that simple.

But let's break it down into even more basic terms:

Men getting angry about women's hypergamous nature is the same thing as women who get angry that "Men only like thin supermodels with big boobs."

May as well get upset at the sun for rising in the East every morning.

Now are you gonna keep raging at the things for which you have no control over...

...or are you going to use this knowledge to your own advantage?

Because that is really what "GAME" is all about. That former case of STD that has now been cleansed from the blogosphere, Tallyrand, left the following insightful comment on my previous post:

Game is accepting the truth about what men and women find attractive.

Rejecting it, is equivalent to rejecting the idea that men find young, healthy, blemish free women with symmetrical faces attractive.

You can reject the truth, but it doesn't leave you any better off doing so.

Following Talley's excellent point was a rather good comment by Anonymous (yes, that same Anonymous who seems to post comments on every single blog on the Inter webs...)

I think your emphasis on hypergamy is the right start. Game starts on the presumption that it has a valid understanding of what is attractive to women, and it's not just guess-work, theorizing, moralizing or vain hope. It's empirical (ie based on experiment), and as such is closer to science. I think its observations are sound, in that they accord with my own experience of the world. Women are indeed drawn to confident men with an air of authority about them, and the more social smarts a man can broadcast, the more attractive women will find him (most women anyhow - some women will immediately dislike such a man because they will rightfully believe they don't have a chance of snagging him).

Women are 'running game' as soon as they uncap the lip-stick, or go on yet another diet. They've correctly understood that the appearance of fertility is what attracts a man, and that youth, good physical build and symmetry of features (which is what beauty is) are the best indicators of fertility. The most attractive women also know how to be submissive in demeanor, in order that the man gets his opportunity to shine in what she expects of him - taking charge (this is the so-called feminine mystique).

Not every man needs game though, just as not every women needs make-up, exercise and dieting. They're rare though. Some people are so damn attractive that they are better off down-playing rather than upgrading themselves, so that someone will at least think they have a chance with them.

So I've come around to the game proponents point of view thus far, after initially being resistant. However, had game been presented in this way to me, I don't think I would have had any objection to it. It's not its observations, or even its application of those observations that are causing the rift between so many men. It's the command that is carried under the breath of so many game proponents: "get with game, or you're a lesser man - being attractive to women is all that matters."

Agreed Anonymous, great point. But understanding Hypergamy has far more implications than simply figuring out "Game" and how to get married or get laid.

As long-time Roissy commenter, Doug1 pointed out:

From the overall social point of view, one of the big downsides of female hypergamy is that the type of male psychosocial dominance that women are attracted to if their hypergamy isn’t strongly culturally shaped and constrained, isn’t by any means always socially recognized male leadership and status, but rather often rough bad boy or even thuggish violence.

BINGO! That is PRECISELY the knowledge of female sexuality that the social engineers utilized when they created the brainwashing programs to institute the feminist zeitgeist we are all now subjugated by.

Knowing the reality of female hypergamy is precisely why the feminist activists pushed the concept of "equality."

A Man who is Equal to a Woman, is a Man that Woman will not find attractive.

This knowledge is the keystone behind almost every legislative action, every government program, and every cultural message transmitted through the mass media outlets and educational institutions.

Friday, September 17, 2010

Fedrz resumed posting at his blog several months ago, and for the most part, he's been simply re-posting excerpts of old MRA message board postings from some old-timers. Good stuff.

But the other day, he actually posted an original piece, which covered the topic of Cultural Marxism, entitled Divide and Conquer.

Fedrz was the first blogger I read that connected the dots regarding the advent of feminism and the Cultural Marxism movement. His blog states the case that much of the problems with feminism and intrusive and the civilization-destroying family law that we are all familiar with today, come from the Marxist Social engineers of the Frankfurt School who effected the long march through western institutions with active measures to normalize the west.

Fedrz deliberately avoids the more "conspiracy theory" aspects to avoid "the Illuminati-shriekers." It's a good strategy to keep the focal point of the discussion focused precisely on the agenda of cultural marxism and how it's shaped our modern world.

Nevertheless, it does speak to the idea that there does exist an "elite." A class of people who have deliberately shaped our current reality through mass media indoctrination, controlling the curriculum and environment of the public education system, and advancing Marxist-Socialist laws and values in the Government.

To take a step back and attempt to comprehend the big picture, I was struck by the idea that these devious, influential and powerful social engineers have done something that is rather common for Engineers in mass commercial manufacturing to do as well - deliberately planned obsolescence.

What else can you call it? Let's look at all of the factors that would lead one to this conclusion:

* Implement socialist redistribution schemes for which one section of the population has their wealth taxed and given to another section of the population.

* Promote the erosion of Patriarchal family formation as the building blocks of society...which leads to even greater numbers of the citizenry becoming dependent on the Government for sustenance (replace Dad with the Welfare State).

* Promote the false notion of "equality" so that women pursue college educations and careers instead of forming families and making babies.

Now I'm quite sure there are a lot more variables that go into this idea, but the general idea is this:

Make the masses dependent on the production of wealth of the productive classes...

...while feminism, birth control, abortion and all the other systems the social engineers have put into place to delay the creation of families with multiple children, eventually results in below replacement demographic trends.

It can only end in one way, eventual systemic collapse.

Look at Social Security - in the next decade, the Baby Boom generation is slated to retire en mass.

Since their social security benefits are paid out by current taxes collected, there will eventually hit the point where there are more benefits owed than current workers whose FICA taxes are collected to payout.

Which, when you consider the plainly stated agenda of Marxism - to destroy capitalist society to make way for their vision of Socialist utopia - it makes perfect sense.

Right now, Western Civilization is like an old gas guzzling v-8 that roared from 0-60 in a few seconds when it was brand new, made by one of the Big 3 manufacturers in Detroit in the mid-eighties. Any day now the timing belt is gonna break, the head gasket's gonna blow and the engine block is gonna crack, rendering it useless. Than we'll all be needing a new car...only the new model is gonna be a hybrid, environmental compact that struggles to hit 55 on the freeway.

The Corn Refiners Association has petitioned the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) asking it to allow the term ‘corn sugar’ as an alternative label declaration for high fructose corn syrup (HFCS).

HFCS has suffered from a spate of bad publicity in recent years, and food and beverage manufacturers have been increasingly switching it out of their products in preference for beet or cane sugar (sucrose).

Now why would that be? You think gout, diabetes and rampant obesity would have something to do with it?

The Corn Refiners Association (CRA) has said that the reason it filed a petition with the FDA was to be clear with consumers about what HFCS is: A sugar made from corn. The CRA – a trade association that represents the corn refining industry in the United States – has repeatedly stressed that HFCS is not high in fructose, even though that is what the name may suggest. In fact it contains proportions of fructose and glucose that are similar to sucrose.

SIMILAR is not exactly THE SAME THING.

President of the Corn Refiners Association Audrae Erickson told FoodNavigator-USA.com: “The words ‘high fructose corn syrup’ have caused confusion…This is all about consumer clarity on the ingredient label.”

She said that in much the same way that there is beet sugar and cane sugar, sugar from corn should be called ‘corn sugar’ in order to give it a name that is easily understood.

We wouldn't want the sheeple to understand the difference between monosaccharides versus disaccharides, and how one is worse than the other!

It is expected to take up to two years for the FDA to come to a decision on whether to approve the renaming.

The American Dietetic Association has also found that HFCS is "nutritionally equivalent to sucrose”, and that it is metabolized by the body in the same way as sucrose.

Right. Eating one or the other on a regular basis for a number of years will result in making you become a fat ass with diabetes, gout, and perhaps even heart disease and cancer.

Erickson said: “We hope that the FDA will act positively on our petition in the interest of consumer clarity."

This is not the first time that a name change has been sought for an ingredient that has been declining in popularity in an effort to simplify its image with consumers.

IS that all? To "simplify it's image?" Or is it to mislead and distract the consumer so they can continue to reap their profits at the expense of the consumers health?

In November last year, Ajinomoto rebranded its aspartame ingredient ‘AminoSweet’, saying the time was right to “remind people that aspartame is made from two amino acids and brings absolutely nothing new to the diet, just sweetness without the calories”.

This just in: don't eat anything with "Corn Sugar" or "AminoSweet" listed on the ingredients.

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

Every single day, I watch the local morning news - for the traffic and the weather. But it seems like the whole "plant-based diet" meme permeates every aspect of the news broadcasts programming, and the food product commercials shown between segments.

It's ubiquitous.

The commercial break will feature some low fat, whole grain cereal, followed by a spot for cholesterol lowering medication, and than back to the broadcast where they are giving tips on making some tasty, low-fat, vegetarian recipe. Than they'll do a spot on how the latest studies "show" that low-carb diets "may" reduce your life span.

Sometimes I just want to yell at the TV, "quit lying, you lying liars!"

But it doesn't end there.

People in real life that know me and my dietary lifestyle will than forward me emails, txts, or tell me that "my diet" will cause me to get heart disease or cancer..even though I lost weight and have kept it off for so long, I'm still slowly killing myself.

They know this, because they saw it on TV or heard it on the radio or read it in the paper...

It never ends.

I no longer even bother trying to explain to people how "scientific" studies that "prove" low-carb/high-animal protein/high-animal fat diets are usually statistical manipulations designed to mislead people into internalizing the meme that a "plant-based diet" is the key to good health.

I just tell them, "We're all gonna die sometime. When I die, I want to go knowing I ate good food and enjoyed life to the fullest. I had bacon and a 3-cheese-tomato-fresh basil omelette for breakfast, and it tasted damn good. What did you eat? A multi-grain cereal with skim milk and a piece of whole grain toast with low-fat margarine on it?"

That usually shuts 'em up.

Anyhow, yesterday's morning news broadcast once again had a report on "the latest studies show that a low carb diet is bad for you."

Conclusion: A low-carbohydrate diet based on animal sources was associated with higher all-cause mortality in both men and women, whereas a vegetable-based low-carbohydrate diet was associated with lower all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality rates.

When I see this on the TV, I already know it's a lie.

But than you get people like Denise Minger, who actually look into the supposed research and prove that it is in fact, nothing but lies.

She notes:

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: In most cases, abstracts tell you a whole ‘lotta nothing—so don’t judge a study until you’ve read the full text.

For right now, I’ll give this study the benefit of the doubt and ignore the fact that A) the researchers used a pretty lame decile-based scoring system* and B) employed the notoriously unreliable food-frequency questionnaire to collect their data.

Every time the researchers made multivariate adjustments to the data to account for the risk factors they did document (including physical activity, BMI, alcohol consumption, hypertension, and smoking, among other things), the hazard ratio went down for the Animal Group (meaning it got better) and it went up for the Vegetable Group (meaning it got worse). That indicates pretty clearly that the Animal Group had more proclivity to disease right from the get go, regardless of meat consumption, and the Vegetable Group may have been more health-aware than most folks. (To see what I’m talking about, look at the mortality tables under the “10″ column, and compare the “Age- and energy-adjusted HR” with the “Multivariate-adjusted HR” for each group.)

In other words, it looks like what this study really measured was a Standard American Diet group (aka Animal Group) and a slightly-less Standard American Diet group (aka Vegetable Group). Both ate sucky diets, but the latter had slightly less suckage. You can bet the farm that neither was anything close to “low carb.” And if you have two farms, you can bet the other one that neither diet group was anything near plant-based, so I’m not sure the vegan crowd has much to gloat about here.

Friday, September 3, 2010

...and make everything go back to the "good ole days," in which sex was bait to lure men into commitment, rather than the current hook up culture of female sexual "empowerment."

Dalrock exposed this foolish delusion found on this post, Sexual Revolution and Feminist: Wrong. Grandma: Right.

Through countless trials and tribulations of our own and those of our readers we have come to realize that the only way in which the female population is going to regain power over this city of boys (we refuse to call them men) is to no longer give them what they want. Yep, that’s right. NO MORE SEX. Seriously.

Just think about it. What if every single woman out there stopped having sex. No more one night stands. No more casual hook-ups. No more f*ck buddies. No more ex-sex. No more let’s start having sex and if it’s good then attempt to backtrack into a relationship. The boys of New York would have to start working for it!

My initial response to this idea? Hah! Pandora's box has already been opened. It is done! The demons of unrestrained female sexuality has been unleashed and they are wreaking havoc on Patriarchal civilization. Too late, ladies.

If you won't give up the milk, men are not going to suddenly be impelled to buy the cow, they'll just find another ready and willing cow giving milk away for free.

But Dalrock took them seriously for a moment, and decided to outline the scenario of what would happen if these ladies were to try and enforce this sex cartel...to restrict the availability of pussy to raise it's overall value.

Hilarity ensues:

Lets say these women are serious, and decide to form a union (a form of cartel). They will need a suitably union sounding name if anyone is going to take them seriously. I propose: Women Holding Out for Relationship Equity. But there are other women having sex with bankers out there, so we need to identify them as well. These women aren’t in it for the money, but for the pure enjoyment of the sex and the ability to exercise their sexual power. Lets call them Sisters Lusting for Unlimited Titillation. To save space, I’ll refer to each group via their acronym in the rest of the post.

So lets say the WHOREs call a city wide sex strike. Do you think the SLUTs are going to take this lying down? Of course not! They’ll just enter into a backdoor agreement with the bankers and continue as usual. In addition, not all of the WHOREs will honor the strike. Some will claim they will honor the strike (lie) and then secretly cheat on the agreement. Thats right: lying cheating WHOREs. So if you are a banker, you have all of the SLUTS and lying cheating WHOREs you can handle. This naturally will bring the golddigging WHOREs to their knees.

What the golddigging WHOREs need is a method to enforce the strike. Labor unions use a combination of social pressure and legal protection to achieve this. However, the WHOREs are not in a good position to try to shame the SLUTs, so they probably won’t get enough social sympathy to enforce the strike or have the laws changed. After all, most of the WHOREs were in all likelyhood SLUTs until very recently, and as I mentioned earlier many of them are actually lying cheating WHOREs. More importantly, feminists have been very successful in creating an aversion to shaming SLUTs. Not too long ago shaming SLUTs was commonplace. But now as a blogger with a diverse audience I for example wouldn’t consider using slut shaming language, even to make a point. Many ordinary women have come to see an insult to sluts as an insult to all women.

It is important to note that not all women are golddiging WHOREs, lying cheating WHOREs, or SLUTs. There is another category which is often overlooked in the manosphere. These women understand that marriage is something much more than a vulgar economic transaction, and they take it very seriously. Unfortunately as we saw in the beginning of the post, these women can end up paying a price for the actions of the SLUTs and the WHOREs.